Previous Olympiads had there fair share of packaged draws (pre-arranged 2-2 results with quick draws on all boards), but it had been expected that the 'no draws in under 30 moves' would prevent this.
However, Craig Skehan came up with an idea over breakfast which still may allow such 'deals' to occur. Teams simply agree to arrive late at alternate boards, meaning that at the start time, 2 players from each side will be defaulted for arriving late, resulting in a 2-2 score. Of course this is cynicism in the extreme, but it would appeal to the 'a result is a result, no matter how it happens' crowd. The other complicating factor is one of trust, in that you had to make sure the opposing team did not renege on the deal by making a last second run for the chairs, but surely amongst gentlemen such a thing would not happen.
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Olympiad Day 9
One of the effects of the pairing system at this Olympiad is teams tend to end up in 'groups' much more than they did in previous events. By that I mean that there are far more teams in a score group using match points than in a group using game points. As a result, the PNG win yesterday moved us into the '5 point' group, which jumped us ahead of about 12 other teams.
Now the important thing to note about 'groups' is that contain different types of teams. Usually there will be a couple of over-achievers who have joined at the bottom, with an awful tie-break score. Then there are the under-achievers, who have had a tragic loss, and sit at the top of the group, with a pretty big tie-break. And by design, the over-achievers crush the under-achievers 4-0. Unfortunately for the over-achievers, not enough teams either leave their group, or even join their group, and so despite avoiding the under-achievers, they still up with a tough pairing in the next round. Malta was a perfect example in that they won their first two matches and then got England, Poland and Egypt in succesive rounds. Despite only scoring 0.5 from 12, they still got tough pairings and only recorded another match win in round 8.
PNG were somewhat in this boat by being paired with South Korea. 2 years ago they weren't that strong (it was their debut), but this time they had a GM on board 1 (Alexy Kim), and had a pretty useful board 2. Indeed the match looked pretty clearcut on 3 of the 4 board, with Korea outrating us on Boards 1 and 4, us looking good on board 3, and board 2 really being the game to decide whether we draw or lose.
It turned out that my game was lost, after I played a bad move in the opening (Note to future opponents: I do this quite a lot) and just got crushed a pawn down. Stuart Fancy had hopes of a good game with his GM opponent, but he dropped a piece within 10 moves, and resigned in under an hour. Craig Skehan missed a pin, dropped a piece and got mated. However Rupert Jones was also following the script and scored out only victory as we went down 1-3.
The 1 point may help our tie-break which should ensure an easier(?) opponent tommorow, although we are looking forward to round 11 whee we expect to finish with a wet sail.
Now the important thing to note about 'groups' is that contain different types of teams. Usually there will be a couple of over-achievers who have joined at the bottom, with an awful tie-break score. Then there are the under-achievers, who have had a tragic loss, and sit at the top of the group, with a pretty big tie-break. And by design, the over-achievers crush the under-achievers 4-0. Unfortunately for the over-achievers, not enough teams either leave their group, or even join their group, and so despite avoiding the under-achievers, they still up with a tough pairing in the next round. Malta was a perfect example in that they won their first two matches and then got England, Poland and Egypt in succesive rounds. Despite only scoring 0.5 from 12, they still got tough pairings and only recorded another match win in round 8.
PNG were somewhat in this boat by being paired with South Korea. 2 years ago they weren't that strong (it was their debut), but this time they had a GM on board 1 (Alexy Kim), and had a pretty useful board 2. Indeed the match looked pretty clearcut on 3 of the 4 board, with Korea outrating us on Boards 1 and 4, us looking good on board 3, and board 2 really being the game to decide whether we draw or lose.
It turned out that my game was lost, after I played a bad move in the opening (Note to future opponents: I do this quite a lot) and just got crushed a pawn down. Stuart Fancy had hopes of a good game with his GM opponent, but he dropped a piece within 10 moves, and resigned in under an hour. Craig Skehan missed a pin, dropped a piece and got mated. However Rupert Jones was also following the script and scored out only victory as we went down 1-3.
The 1 point may help our tie-break which should ensure an easier(?) opponent tommorow, although we are looking forward to round 11 whee we expect to finish with a wet sail.
Saturday, 22 November 2008
On becoming an arbiter
I do all of my arbiting in Australia (where I live), but the Australian Chess Federation does not have an arbiter accreditation system. Neither does the PNG Chess Federation (with whom I'm registered) so the only official arbiter accreditation can come via FIDE.
Despite having directed enough tournaments to meet the qualification criteria (an Australian Championship, 4 Australian Opens, large numbers of Doeberl Cup's, the SIO, and a IM Round Robin in the 90's) I hadn't applied for the International Arbiter title until now. In the meantime FIDE had introduced the FIDE Arbiter title, which I had to get first, so I began the process of application earlier this year.
As the application was to go through the PNGCF, the final stage would be pretty easy (as I am the PNGCF secretary). However there were obstacles in the way. Part of the application was to submit details of tournaments directed, along with signature of the chief arbiter (usually an IA) as well as a signature from the hosts federation (in this case the ACF). I organised the reports, and sent them off to the various arbiters to sign, and then waited for their return. I got one quick response from the always conscientious Cathy Rogers, but the rest of the paper work got lost in the system. For various reasons (and I was given a few), the chief arbiter of my other events and the ACF official responsible for signing, couldn't get organised to meet up and at the deadline for submission, my forms were still floating around Sydney somewhere. (As it turns out I wasn't the only one in this boat, as another application missed the deadline because it was not processed by the ACF, and had to be submitted as a last minute request by the ACF during the Olympiad).
Luckily for me, I was having lunch with Stewart Reuben on the second or third day of the Olympiad, and he remarked that he was holding a FIDE Arbiters seminar (and that I'd just missed the first session). However, if I sat the rest of the sessions, and passed the final exam, I would earn my FA title. So I spent the next two mornings attending the seminar.
Oddly enough the final section was on FIDE Swiss pairing rules. It was a small seminar (about 8 attendees), and at the start of the final section Stewart announces that he does not use the FIDE Pairing Rules when he pairs by hand (using the BCF system instead) and looking at me said "Shaun, you're more familiar with the rules than I am, why don't you teach this part". And I did. So I had the wonderful experience of teaching a topic which I was to sit an exam on the next day.
I sat the exam the next day, and was told that I had passed, meaning I have qualified for the FIDE Arbiter Title. As for the Swiss Pairings part of the exam, Stewart said to me "Oh, but you got that question wrong!"
Despite having directed enough tournaments to meet the qualification criteria (an Australian Championship, 4 Australian Opens, large numbers of Doeberl Cup's, the SIO, and a IM Round Robin in the 90's) I hadn't applied for the International Arbiter title until now. In the meantime FIDE had introduced the FIDE Arbiter title, which I had to get first, so I began the process of application earlier this year.
As the application was to go through the PNGCF, the final stage would be pretty easy (as I am the PNGCF secretary). However there were obstacles in the way. Part of the application was to submit details of tournaments directed, along with signature of the chief arbiter (usually an IA) as well as a signature from the hosts federation (in this case the ACF). I organised the reports, and sent them off to the various arbiters to sign, and then waited for their return. I got one quick response from the always conscientious Cathy Rogers, but the rest of the paper work got lost in the system. For various reasons (and I was given a few), the chief arbiter of my other events and the ACF official responsible for signing, couldn't get organised to meet up and at the deadline for submission, my forms were still floating around Sydney somewhere. (As it turns out I wasn't the only one in this boat, as another application missed the deadline because it was not processed by the ACF, and had to be submitted as a last minute request by the ACF during the Olympiad).
Luckily for me, I was having lunch with Stewart Reuben on the second or third day of the Olympiad, and he remarked that he was holding a FIDE Arbiters seminar (and that I'd just missed the first session). However, if I sat the rest of the sessions, and passed the final exam, I would earn my FA title. So I spent the next two mornings attending the seminar.
Oddly enough the final section was on FIDE Swiss pairing rules. It was a small seminar (about 8 attendees), and at the start of the final section Stewart announces that he does not use the FIDE Pairing Rules when he pairs by hand (using the BCF system instead) and looking at me said "Shaun, you're more familiar with the rules than I am, why don't you teach this part". And I did. So I had the wonderful experience of teaching a topic which I was to sit an exam on the next day.
I sat the exam the next day, and was told that I had passed, meaning I have qualified for the FIDE Arbiter Title. As for the Swiss Pairings part of the exam, Stewart said to me "Oh, but you got that question wrong!"
The Olympiad Pairings Sytem
In a previous post I reported on some comments made concerning the pairing system in use at this years Olympiad. I must confess it wasn't until today that I finally got my head around the whole process.
The system in use is the Burstein System which uses SB tie-breaks to order teams in a score bracket (rather than rating or seeding which is more common). The other complication is that teams in a score bracket are not paired top v middle, but instead top v bottom, second to v second bottom etc
The most difficult challenge facing the teams is to try and work out their SB score, which is a mystery to most. The actual formula used is the sum of your opponents match points multiplied by your game points against them. For example PNG lost 2.5 - 1.5 to the AHO's who until today had 6 match points. This means that they contribute 9 points to our tiebreak. To remove distortion based on unlucky (random?) pairings, you drop the lowest score.
Knowing this clears up some of the confusion about the pairing system, as their was an opinion that winning by a narrow margin (2.5-1.5) actually improved your tie-break (on the principle your opponents were stronger than a team you might beat 4-0). It turns out that this is not the case.
The system in use is the Burstein System which uses SB tie-breaks to order teams in a score bracket (rather than rating or seeding which is more common). The other complication is that teams in a score bracket are not paired top v middle, but instead top v bottom, second to v second bottom etc
The most difficult challenge facing the teams is to try and work out their SB score, which is a mystery to most. The actual formula used is the sum of your opponents match points multiplied by your game points against them. For example PNG lost 2.5 - 1.5 to the AHO's who until today had 6 match points. This means that they contribute 9 points to our tiebreak. To remove distortion based on unlucky (random?) pairings, you drop the lowest score.
Knowing this clears up some of the confusion about the pairing system, as their was an opinion that winning by a narrow margin (2.5-1.5) actually improved your tie-break (on the principle your opponents were stronger than a team you might beat 4-0). It turns out that this is not the case.
Olympiad Day 8
The PNG v Bermuda match is something of a tradition at recent Olympiads. In part it is due to the fact that members of both teams socialise together throughout the tournament, and of course, by this stage of the tournament we are both scouring the bottom of the event. In Turin the result was 2.5-1.5 to Bermuda but this time the score was reversed.
Most surprisingly this was achieved without PNG losing a game. Astute readers will instantly realise that this meant that Craig Skehan did not lose. As the other 3 horses of the apocolypse have yet to appear, you can also assume in this case he only drew. But this is Craig's first half point of the Olympiad, so it is cause for some celebration (which we will be doing shortly).
The win for PNG came on the top board where Stuart Fancy went up a pawn against Nick Faulks and nursed it through the double rook ending. The game ended drastically when Nick walked into a mate. In a repeat of yesterday game I reached a position I did not like, got into time trouble, and then pulled off a save with seconds on the clock. Unlike yesterday the game ended in a draw, although Bermuda team captain Nick DeFirmian felt his player may have had reason to play on.
Rupert Jones also had a poor position but seemed to recover, with the game ending in aperpetual repetition. The team is now on 5 match points which probably means a couple of rounds of pain, with hopefully an easy pairing in the final round to get us towards my target score of 7 (3 wins and a draw).
Most surprisingly this was achieved without PNG losing a game. Astute readers will instantly realise that this meant that Craig Skehan did not lose. As the other 3 horses of the apocolypse have yet to appear, you can also assume in this case he only drew. But this is Craig's first half point of the Olympiad, so it is cause for some celebration (which we will be doing shortly).
The win for PNG came on the top board where Stuart Fancy went up a pawn against Nick Faulks and nursed it through the double rook ending. The game ended drastically when Nick walked into a mate. In a repeat of yesterday game I reached a position I did not like, got into time trouble, and then pulled off a save with seconds on the clock. Unlike yesterday the game ended in a draw, although Bermuda team captain Nick DeFirmian felt his player may have had reason to play on.
Rupert Jones also had a poor position but seemed to recover, with the game ending in a
Friday, 21 November 2008
Olympiad Day 7
PNG continued their tour of the Carribean, with a match against Barbados. Although they aren't as strong as normal, the still crushed us 4-0. In the end all the games finished with collapses, as firstly Stuart, Craig, Rupert and then myself went from interesting, to lost.
Actually my game went from lost to interesting to almost the biggest save I've ever made. In my time trouble my opponent tried to mate me, but by playing saving moves I miraculosly emerged material ahead. However my opponent still had mating chances and I gave back my booty to head for an inferior ending. As it turns out I probably gave back the material the wrong way and I had practicial chances (although not theoretical chances) if I had found a different move.
Hopefully the reward for our defeat will be an easier pairing tommorow, but given our last couple of rounds I'm not hopeful.
Actually my game went from lost to interesting to almost the biggest save I've ever made. In my time trouble my opponent tried to mate me, but by playing saving moves I miraculosly emerged material ahead. However my opponent still had mating chances and I gave back my booty to head for an inferior ending. As it turns out I probably gave back the material the wrong way and I had practicial chances (although not theoretical chances) if I had found a different move.
Hopefully the reward for our defeat will be an easier pairing tommorow, but given our last couple of rounds I'm not hopeful.
Technical Commision
The other meeting I attended was the Technical Commision, which wasn't as long as RTRC, but was still pretty interesting. The major point of discussion was the Olympiad pairing system, and the use of match points rather than game points. Both Almog Burstein (head of Olympiad pairings) and Christian Krause (Chairman of the FIDE Swiss Pairings Commitee) were pretty scathing in their comments about the use of match points. Burstein said the pairings were OK but were distorted by the use of match points rather than game points, while Krause said the pairings for Round 3 were a "catastrophe". Whether this results in a change for the next Olympiad I don't know, as the comments were not followed by any motions or other actions.
The rest of it was done in a rush, with the discussion of clocks, pairing programs being pretty brief, and after an hour we were all told we could go home.
The rest of it was done in a rush, with the discussion of clocks, pairing programs being pretty brief, and after an hour we were all told we could go home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)